tigerland12
John Thornett (49)
Shit stirring
Why is Tom Carter unpickable?
- Thread starter Bruce Ross
- Start date
- Status
Shit stirring
Groucho
Greg Davis (50)
tigerland12
John Thornett (49)
I would call it satire.
Shit stirring would get me a ban.
Trying to get a reaction from Reds fans. I got a thingy for doing the same to the tahs. Or does it only apply to non-NSW posters?
Anyway this Carter arguement is essentially Tahs fans arguing why he is better then Fainga'a and Reds fans arguing the opposite. Which is the basis of a lot of the selection threads of late, the bias is ruining many topics.
Langthorne
Phil Hardcastle (33)
Well if Hynes comes back from injury we could slot him in ahead of the Beale bloke.
Of course the forwards will need a few changes too - I guess Pocock is an ok fill in for Robinson, TPN and Moore can fight it out for the reserve hooker spot...
matty_k
Peter Johnson (47)
How is Pakalani doubting TC the correct thing to do here? Please correct me if I am wrong but I thought that when defending you had to trust that the person inside would mark and tackle their opposite so that you didn't open up the channel outside you if you drifted in.
How I saw it Gits was holding off and crabbing. Tom hadn't committed to the tackle and was waiting to see what Gits was doing. As soon as Pakalani decided to tackle Gits the play opened up and the try was scored.
Sure Gits may have slipped past TC but that still wasn't certain. Try became a certainty after Pakalani doubted TC's defence.
I
International Badboy
Guest
which came about because TC was't fast enough to get their
Richo
John Thornett (49)
Cherry picking a single play (especially one in which who is at fault is clearly debatable) is a silly way to judge a player. Ironically, it's also precisely the opposite of what Bruce is trying to achieve with this thread, which is to get people thinking about how and why we value certain players over others.
No, I am not arguing Carter should be ahead of Fainga'a, nor is most of this thread. My point was questioning why Fainga'a should get a leg up because he "combines" so well with Cooper, when other players might combine just as well.
And I was asleep when Groucho posted his thing - but fair point, it was shit-stirring.
Thanks for the suggestion , Cutter, and I actually read it quite nicely the first time. I still disagree with what you wrote, despite reading it again. But not so much to really want to argue further.
G
GC
Guest
The problem with using stats alone to prove one player is better than another is that it relies on all else being equal. ie. each player playing the same part of the same defensive structure; the forwards allowing the opposition backs to hit the back line with the same momentum; the same adjustments for defending kicks; same no. of times the 12 is cut-out on attack etc. As this never actually occurs, using stats from players from two different teams which play the game with markedly different styles and structures is essentially meaningless.
It doesn't take that astute a judge to realise that Carter has had a good year but would be down Deans' pecking order behind JOC (James O'Connor), Gits, Barnes (if well), Fainga'a (combo with Cooper, already a Wob) and maybe even McCabe (potential). If the Wobs got injuries like the Tahs, he may well be picked and would probably do a reasonable job without setting the world on fire.
It doesn't take that astute a judge to realise that Carter has had a good year but would be down Deans' pecking order behind JOC (James O'Connor), Gits, Barnes (if well), Fainga'a (combo with Cooper, already a Wob) and maybe even McCabe (potential). If the Wobs got injuries like the Tahs, he may well be picked and would probably do a reasonable job without setting the world on fire.
Richo
John Thornett (49)
It's unfortunate that rugby does not appear to have moved towards sabermetrics, probably because the game is so complex (unlike, say, baseball). What would be helpful is relative stats, like percentage of available tackles made or pace-adjusted metres gained, so that comparisons across teams would be more meaningful.
Cutter
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Perhaps I should have said: "Statistics don't capture everything and TC having excellent defensive statistics doesn't mean he can't be a liability in defence." Instead of relying on everyone to understand that was the implication.
Cyclo and others, rest assured, I'm not judging the guy on this single play. What it demonstrates, as does the play where he was slow to turn and chase the kick thus conceding a try, is that neither would be considered a missed tackle (the only defensive error option Bruce is giving us). However, in both cases, TC's defensive inadequacies resulted in an opposition try. Taking the statistical argument to it's ridiculous conclusion, these two errors led to two of the 23? tries the Tahs conceded this year. Thus, although only missing 0.000000000001 tackles per 4 kazillion attempted, Carter was responsible for at least one twelfth (assuming the 23 tries is right and I'm not going to check) of the Tahs tries conceded.
The other point of interest is the "errors" statistic in the latest data presented. Obviously this doesn't include penalties conceded as TC gives away a few. However, penalties conceded should be considered an error.
I'm not anti TC, I am anti the presentation of statistics as a compelling argument for selection of a player. Whilst statistics can be a useful tool, I'm surprised by how many people have changed their views on TC as a consequence of these stats. He is in career best form, but he's not Wallaby material and I would not be confident entering a test with him as our 12 or 13.
Godfrey
Phil Hardcastle (33)
Surely the answer to this has been said enough times. The reason he doesn't get picked is because there are/have been at least three better options in front of him. The quality of other players being higher does not mean anyone thinks he is complete rubbish. I'm sure if Giteau, Barnes and J'OC were all hit by a bus he'd be called up to the squad.
Anyway, I think we can be quite certain the selection panel won't be using selective Fantasy Football stats to pick the team.
Anyway, I think we can be quite certain the selection panel won't be using selective Fantasy Football stats to pick the team.
This, it is simply that there are better options who are more threat. Also I think Fainga'a was given a chance last season because of his greater success at 13 - that extra flexibility gave him his chance.
Carter's work at 13 last season was very average, he did much better this season.
matty_k
Peter Johnson (47)
My first response to this was "Really? I didn't think he was that bad."
TC was the third worst penalty conceder.
Wynand Olivier and Ma'a Non were the worst offenders with 13 each. With TC with 12.
A Fainga'a was 5th on 8.
Anyhoo as this argument continues its never ending circle I still think he should be given a chance to see if he can step up (I'm sure I've said that before).
- Status